Talk:Mapusaurus/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 14:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• The first fossils of this taxon were discovered in 1995 by members of the Argentinian-Canadian Dinosaur Project[1] in an exposure of the Huincul Formation at Cañadón del Gato, a site 20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Plaza Huincul in Neuquén Province, Argentina.[2] – You cite the New York times article for the year "1995", but that is contradicting the first description which says "1997". The Times article reads The fossils were excavated over five years, beginning in 1995, before scientists realized they were dealing with a new species of giant carnivores …. This would also mean that the scientists did not realize they had a new species until 2000, but the conference abstract you cite that announces a new genus is from 1997. As so often, the news article seems to be quite unreliable and should be removed.
• however, later digs would find more fossils – can be removed as redundant; you state in the next sentence how much had been found.
• a new genus and species of giant carcharodontosaurid theropod. Based on this material, they named them Mapusaurus roseae. – Should be "a new genus and species of giant carcharodontosaurid theropod, which they named Mapusaurus roseae".
• and thus "Earth lizard". – lacks an "translates as" or something
• such as a carpometacarpus that American paleontologist Matthew Carrano and colleagues (2012) stated is a distal (away from body) humerus – I suggest "an supposed carpometacarpus" to make clear that the identification is outdated (same with the fibula), and "identified as the lower end of the humerus" (note that "distal" is unneeded, and "distal humerus" means that the entire humerus is away from the body, while you probably wanted to refer to the lower end only).
• In 2005, a right postorbital – postorbital could have a brief explanation
• Argentine paleontologist Matias Motta – red-link only if you are sure that the destination article would be notable. With living persons, this is often not the case.
• from a section of sandstone strata in Violante Farm in Río Negro Province – "at" Violante Farm? Also, you don't need the technical term "strata" at all here, just write "from sandstones at".
• posterior (back portion) mandible, incomplete cervical (neck vertebrae) series, fragments of dorsal (back) vertebrae – use glosses sparingly, as they also disrupt reading flow. "posterior" could be replaced by "the back portion of a mandible", and cervical, dorsal etc. you already glossed earlier, so no need to do that again.
• was unearthed along with the Taurovenator. – Along with which Taurovenator? Can't follow.
• In 2005, an associated skeleton (MPCA-Pv 803) including a partial skull and posterior (back portion) mandible, incomplete cervical (neck vertebrae) series, fragments of dorsal (back) vertebrae, several ribs, two partial forelimbs, a femur, a partial pes, gastralia and a caudal vertebra was unearthed along with the Taurovenator. – Confusing to only mention that here; I would combine it with the discovery of the postorbital.
• This specimen was regarded as belonging to an indeterminate carcharodontosaurid in the 2016 description of Taurovenator.[11][12] In 2024, this specimen was described and assigned to Taurovenator. – Chopped writing, and could be worded much more concisely. The entire Taurovenator paragraph could be more concise.
• In an analysis of the strata from which the holotype was discovered – But isn't the skeleton also from the same strata? Why just the holotype?
• Additionally, the holotype preserve features of the Giganotosaurini, further supporting its referral to Taurovenator. – Doesn't make any sense; Taurovenator is fixed to its holotype.
• Try to word the Taurovenator section more concisely
• with the former being based on a left dentary (MCF PVPH-108.3) and the latter being based on a left femur (MCF-PVPH-108.203) – where does "former" and "latter" refer to?
• Compared to many other carcharodontosaurids, Mapusaurus' skull is among the most completely understood – Awkward formulation
• More to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  Could I possibly withdrawal my nomination of this article? It no longer meets my standards for a new nomination and I believe it needs a lot of work. Thank you so much, I just would like to improve the article, wait, and/or prioritize another one of my articles I have nominated (I. E. Phorusrhacos, Aussiedraco). AFH (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  No problem, I will fail it then. It doesn't look too bad for me though; it's mostly language issues? But I can review one of your others next if you like. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes I would really appreciate that. Phorusrhacos is one that I’ve put a lot of effort into so if you’d like to review that one next I would greatly appreciate it. AFH (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  I may come back to Mapusaurus in time, but at the moment I am prioritizing my phorusrhacid articles. I'll still put in these suggestions for Mapusaurus though. AFH (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.